Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2019

Federal Judge Enjoins Trump on Wall

Filed under: Government,Immigration — DRJ @ 9:19 am



[Headline from DRJ]

The HillJudge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall:

A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States’s southern border.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration’s use of military funds for the border wall.

President Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year in order to divert roughly $6 billion in Defense Department funds toward border wall construction. Friday’s ruling blocks the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for a border wall.

— DRJ

101 Responses to “Federal Judge Enjoins Trump on Wall”

  1. Of course. We all knew that would happen. He’s a black judge appointed by Obama. We got 1000 district court judges, it wasn’t hard for the Liberals to find ONE that would block the wall. Maybe Roberts Mr. “we need to lower the judges profile” can explain why he’s letting district courts issue 20 nation-wide injunctions against Trump in the last 2.4 years and almost none against Obama in 8 years.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  2. It’s really amazing the reach of a single district court judge. The President declares an emergency and a judge gets to say it really isn’t one. This is a constitutional crisis.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  3. Pretend it wasn’t Trump. Just for one moment.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  4. Thomas in a dissent noted that the first nation-wide injunction by a D.Court was issued in 1962. And that they’ve been used sparely ever since then. Now, every day some Obama Judge is stopping an action by Trump. Most of these DC judges are fairly young and when you look at their records, they just went to law school, joined a law firm, worked for some Democrat candidate and then BOOM at age 40 they’re on the court for life.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  5. Roberts has nothing to stop this. Despite his pledge to reduce the activism of both Left and the Right. Trump called the Census case decision ridiculous and convoluted, which it was. If Roberts is a “Never Trumper” bushie I wouldn’t be surprised. He’s gone Left on any number of cases, which is why Bush II put him on the court.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  6. Pretend it wasn’t Trump. Just for one moment.

    OK.

    Dave (1bb933)

  7. Dave (1bb933) — 6/29/2019 @ 10:28 am

    Attaboy, Dave! [pulls out $100 bill and hands it to Dave] This is for you , pal.

    [Turns to Kevin with an incredulous look and declares] Are you gonna let him get away with that? What is the world coming to?

    felipe (023cc9)

  8. I, too, worry that one judge can override a President’s decisions. I want the Wall but even if I didn’t, I want Presidents to be able to make national security decisions to protect us. However, Congress has refused to fund the Wall and funding is its job.

    DRJ (15874d)

  9. Thus, I don’t think Trump or any President should be able to ignore decisions made by Congress, one judge shouldn’t be able to easily override a President. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

    DRJ (15874d)

  10. one judge shouldn’t be able to easily override a President

    Even when he is clearly violating the law?

    The emergency funds Trump is trying to misuse were appropriated for constructing military bases, not immigration barriers. It’s a simple case of brazen lawlessness.

    Dave (1bb933)

  11. Didn’t Justice Thomas recently speak on this issue?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  12. Since we know there is an actual crisis on the border and an ongoing invasion, the President is clearly authorized to take reasonable steps to end both issues.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  13. @ rcocean, who wrote (#1):

    Maybe Roberts Mr. “we need to lower the judges profile” can explain why he’s letting district courts issue 20 nation-wide injunctions against Trump in the last 2.4 years and almost none against Obama in 8 years.

    What on earth makes you think that the Chief Justice, or any other single member of the SCOTUS, has the power to just reach out and do that?

    What a perfectly ignorant, perfectly Trumplike statement. What a perfect proof that the maker of the statement neither knows or cares about the Rule of Law, but sees the world as if everyone else in it has the same arbitrary power he thinks he has. Such-and-such “shouldn’t be allowed” — as if some enemy of Trump’s, some single person, had a handle he could pull or a dial he could turn to magically establish the mysterious result Trump has in mind, but annoyingly refuses to do so, probably just to piss off Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. DRJ wrote (#9):

    This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

    By which I am entirely confident that DRJ — a proponent and respecter of the Rule of Law — meant: A litigant in one of the nationwide injunction cases needs to specifically object, while in the trial court, to the nationwide aspect of an injunction, and to fully brief that issue for the trial judge’s consideration; he needs to obtain a ruling on the record in the trial court to show that his argument was rejected there; he needs to perfect that argument for appeal, and get a ruling on it by an appellate court; and then and only then may he assert that argument to the entire Supreme Court as part of a petition for certiorari and/or a motion to stay the judgment of the court of appeals, which might be presented to the relevant circuit’s “circuit justice” (i.e., a single member of the SCOTUS) in the first instance, but which would assuredly be referred by that circuit justice to the full SCOTUS for consideration even on an emergency basis.

    This is the way issues get to the SCOTUS. The Chief Justice can’t just get out of bed one morning and pretend that these hoops have all been jumped through so he can impose his individual will upon a lower court.

    rcocean has no hesitation, however, in criticizing the Chief Justice for failing to do something which he literally has no power to do. This is a cartoonish understanding of the judiciary and its role in America, and a very bad cartoon at that.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. This post at the Volohk Conspiracy briefly describes Justice Thomas’ separate concurrence in the 2018 travel ban decision that was critical of nationwide injunctions, and that cites this Harvard Law Review article by Volohk co-conspirator Prof. Sam Bray on the subject.

    There are already several appellate “candidates” in the system that could bring the issue properly before the SCOTUS in the coming term. But if the DoJ wants to get the issue decided at the SCOTUS level, it should be creating the appropriate appellate record on every case, including this new one.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. Here’s Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case in which Justice Thomas specially concurred.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. he was a division head at Covington with holder, and an associate of Mueller’s in northern California,
    anything to stop a legitimate function of the us govt,

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. @8. Not so sure that should be an absolute; 58,000 reasons are etched on another wall in Washington, D.C.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. Judges are doing all the legislative heavy lifting. Making law, interpreting and enforcing it is all on their shoulders, so we should thank them for taking it off our hands.

    Munroe (6329fc)

  20. Munroe, congress literally said “NO.” The court is only saying that congress has the constitutional right to say “NO” to matters of funding.

    If the president can call any long term, massive construction project a national emergency, emergency meaning something he didn’t have time to ask congress to fund, then the constitution is not being followed.

    This isn’t just Trump’s fault. Congress likes to pass its authority to the president, and W and Obama both gobbled a lot of it up over the years. Re-Elections are easier if you have less of a voting record. But the judge is right.

    And it’s largely Trump’s fault. He was elected on the immigration issue but has failed to make deals or politic or lead. He’s instead exploited this immigration crisis because it’s a good issue for him. He should have acted on this on day one, and he promised he would, but instead he’s behaved more like a troll than a president.

    Personally, I want Trump to keep his broken promise on the wall, and I know his supporters are going to say it’s not Trump’s fault he made promises he didn’t keep.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  21. “He’s instead exploited this immigration crisis because it’s a good issue for him. He should have acted on this on day one”
    Dustin (6d7686) — 6/29/2019 @ 1:55 pm

    From day one, Trump hasn’t been good at multitasking. A stronger president would’ve been able to juggle intractable immigration policy with impeachment efforts.

    Who hasn’t exploited this crisis? What faction, other than Trump supporters on one extreme and the open borders crowd on the other, are truly dissatisfied with the status quo? Dems? Establishment Republicans? NeverTrump? All are happy with the way things are.

    Dems get their voters eventually, even without amnesty. Est Repubs get cheap labor to make their business cronies happy, and NT gets a cudgel to slam Trump with.

    Munroe (fe1e3d)

  22. the bureaucracy, and the media, wants the dissolution of this country,

    https://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-muslim-plot-to-bomb-black-church.html

    when America has ceased to be, then they will appreciate it, but by then they will have signed our death sentence,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Dave, DAPA was a non-emergency action contrary to law. Not the same thing. At all. Fail.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  24. DRJ, Congress did not ban using funds for a wall, and DID give funds to the military for national security purposes. Trump, being boss of the military says they need to do this. But the judge says, no, *I* am Commander-in-Chief!

    Kevin M (61459c)

  25. Show me a law where it says that no funds may be spent on a wall. Failing that, show me a law that says that all military funds may only be used for the exact line item they were appropriated for. I’ll bet you that the military has, throughout its history, moved money from one line item to another as it found necessary. And the CinC is in charge of that. For example, nobody said LBJ had $50,000,000 to bomb North Vietnam over Christmas. Yet he did and it was perfectly legal if unwise.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  26. Munroe, congress literally said “NO.” The court is only saying that congress has the constitutional right to say “NO” to matters of funding.

    They did no such thing. They did not, however, say YES. Those are not the same thing. For an example of NO, see the Boland Amendment. Then consider: if Congress felt the need to say “No funds may be expended to arm the Contras” that means they knew that they did not have to specifically authorize money for the Contras in order for the CinC to deem it a necessary expense.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  27. 10.
    Like social security funds used for other purposes? Or like California road taxes used for pension funding? So will such rampant lawlessness now be controlled by judges?

    And yeah, we really NEED more military bases! Critical need for those!

    So lets have an unelected judge decide how to spend the military budget! Here is now it works:

    JUDGE: “Hey that was supposed to be used for the Army!
    FDR: “But until I get Lend Lease passed, I’m going to send it to the Brits.
    JUDGE: Oh no you don’t! I know what is best!

    Or this:
    JUDGE: The rules require a requisition slip before heading out machine guns!
    FDR: but Pearl Harbor is being bombed!
    JUDGE” Too bad scofflaw!

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (6b1442)

  28. Beldar 14,

    I did not read any comments before leaving my comment and you are correct that I want this to go to the Supreme Court as you explained.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. Last year:

    US shutdown: Democrats refuse funds for Trump wall

    . Earlier this year:

    Congress approves border deal to avert shutdown; Trump to sign it and seek wall money elsewhere

    .

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. The better way to prevent District Judges from issuing nationwide injunctions is for Congress to amend the Judiciary Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Agent Orange could have at least tried to do it when the GOP had both Houses and some Obama appointee in Hawaii had just struck down the Muslim ban.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. Dave, DAPA was a non-emergency action contrary to law. Not the same thing. At all. Fail.

    Ah, I see.

    So if President Obama had unilaterally declared “Emergency!” like Trump did, it would have all been kosher?

    Dave (1bb933)

  33. What do you call a lawyer that doesn’t know the law?
    A judge.

    mg (8cbc69)

  34. Give him the Andrew Jackson treatment.

    Reginald Pettifogger (728656)

  35. They did no such thing. They did not, however, say YES. Those are not the same thing.

    Kevin M (61459c) — 6/29/2019 @ 2:42 pm

    Um sorry, but that’s not really a fair synopsis. From DRJ’s timely link:

    US President Donald Trump’s signature campaign pledge to build a wall along the US-Mexico border is at stake in a major budget battle this week.

    A partial government shutdown is looming on Friday if Congress cannot agree funding for federal agencies.

    Democrats are refusing White House demands for $5bn (£3.9bn) towards constructing such a wall.

    Mr Trump said last week he would be “proud” to shut down his own government if he did not secure the funding.

    What does a government shutdown cost?
    Six things that could topple Donald Trump’s border wall
    The Republican president has been unable to loosen legislative purse strings for the project, even with his party controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives for nearly two years.

    This was kinda a big news story, that shutdown, when Trump asked congress for money, and that congress that was elected largely as a rejection of Trump said “no you cannot have that money.” So Trump went to this national emergency bit, which is really intended to get funds when there’s no time to go to congress. It’s not intended to be a trick. The constitution says congress decides what funds are spent on what, and Trump violated the constitution in this case.

    So now, a judge is saying “well let’s just follow that constitution, and let the congress do the legislation.” And critics of this judge are saying it’s the judge doing the legislating… only because he stopped Trump from legislating.

    But really it’s our founding fathers who made this decision, over 200 years ago. Trump isn’t a king.

    This goes to the very heart of Trump’s failure. He was elected as a rejection of teamwork, of politics, of moderation. He was also elected on his promises to make much better deals than those moderate republicans could, his grandiose cut through all the BS and get that wall, balance that budget, eliminate ISIS, get respect from Iran and North Korea, etc etc. But in order to actually accomplish any of that stuff, he has to be a great politician… not a troll on twitter who inspires so much anger in our nation.

    It still could have worked in Trump’s favor. He had a lot of momentum after his surprise election. Had he, day one, pushed the GOP to get him this wall, I think he’d have it. Instead he wanted this immigration thing to get worse. He waited and waited and waited so it would be an issue in 2016. And the people rejected Trump in 2016, so Trump went to the democrats and asked for wall money. Well, the people decided they wanted the democrats to have the power of the purse, which has shut down most of Trump’s initiatives.

    He has failed to keep his promises, and blaming a judge for knowing what the constitution says is not a good excuse.

    I hate* to say I told-ya-so, but this was my main argument against Trump. He’s not going to accomplish anything on immigration other than to ruin the issue for conservatives in the future.

    *I most certainly do not hate to say this.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  36. “ *I most certainly do not hate to say this.”
    Dustin (6d7686) — 6/29/2019 @ 4:49 pm

    The cudgel referred to @21 put to effect.

    Munroe (e1b049)

  37. Munroe,

    I was hoping Trump would keep his promise on immigration, the budget, and obamacare. I’m unhappy that I was right that he was only pretending to care about these issues because they are politically useful. He had ample opportunity to fight the good fight before the midterms, and only after he needed Pelosi’s approval did he make his real stand. It’s all a show. Trump is less conservative than Bush 43, and less capable as a deal-maker or leader, by far.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  38. The Mexicans are laughing all the way to the bank; where their money you were told was going to pay for your ‘wall’ remains safe and sound– and gathering interest.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. The govt is weaponized against the citizenry the courts provide little protection to the progressive onslaught, neither the redistricting decision nor the census one provide any comfort

    Narciso (30eb7e)

  40. I look forward to seeing district court judges issue injunctions against the military funding the F35 and Littoral Combat Ships programs.

    Russ from Winterset (531c90)

  41. @25. Yes. Sorta how James Mattoon Scott “appropriated” funds for that secret ECOMCOM base from JSC contingency fund planning that government overthrow of his. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. I look forward to seeing district court judges issue injunctions against the military funding the F35 and Littoral Combat Ships programs.

    If Congress actively refuses to fund them and a President try’s to redirect funding from something else, then yeah, injunctions will follow.

    And they should, two bad programs mismanaged terribly, kind of like the wall.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  43. It’s amazing to me how the constitution doesn’t matter to the GOP when it’s inconvenient to them. Just a few years ago, I was Mr. GOP, and I honestly believed there was a major integrity difference between the parties.

    The house has the power of the purse and they considered this spending, and quite loudly refused it, even shutting down the government over it. To fund it anyway is obviously to violate the constitution. Sure, there is a roundabout and dishonest way to do it, like anything, but judges get to use their common sense judgment when you are dishonest.

    But remember, this isn’t about the wall. That is a trick. Trump could have had his funding in 2017 and didn’t ask then, because solving this issue would have taken wind out of his political sails. He waited until he needed Pelosi’s permission and then it was WWIII crisis time. He’s that stereotypical RINO who wants to pound the table when he’s in the minority, but oddly quiet when in the majority. It’s a show.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  44. You laugh, as a friend from college used to say, but it’s coming

    Narciso (30eb7e)

  45. ^
    ?

    Dustin (6d7686)

  46. “It’s all a show. Trump is less conservative than Bush 43, and less capable as a deal-maker or leader, by far.”
    Dustin (6d7686) — 6/29/2019 @ 7:34 pm

    In eight years, what did Bush 43 give us on immigration other than the MS-13 Welcome Wagon Act , which has contributed significantly to the mess Trump has to deal with?

    Neither the Democrats nor Senate Republicans wanted the wall. If Trump had done a mind meld with Bush, it wouldn’t have gone any further than it did, even with the highly dubious assertion that Dubya even would’ve wanted one.

    The notion that Trump could’ve had the wall in 2017 when Republicans had the majority is simply ridiculous.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/20/trump-border-wall-survey-congress-republicans-billions/640196001/

    Munroe (f61be7)

  47. Injunctions on defense policy, hes Canadian has a dry sense of humor.

    Narciso (30eb7e)

  48. Injunctions on defense policy, hes Canadian has a dry sense of humor.

    Defense programs are funded by acts of Congress, not the President, if your going to troll Americans, try a bit of 2nd grade googlefu first. The words policy and program are different for a reason.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  49. In eight years, what did Bush 43 give us on immigration other than the MS-13 Welcome Wagon Act , which has contributed significantly to the mess Trump has to deal with?

    He massively increased the number of BP agents and cut unlawful entries between points of entry by a factor of two.

    Dave (1bb933)

  50. Border Patrol Agents Numbers Increase Along U.S. Borders

    EL PASO, Texas — The Border Patrol numbers of federal agents has grown to about 11,000 since the year 2007, this number has tripled since the tragic events of 9/11 according to the agency’s website.

    One of President George W. Bush’s final acts in office was to push the bill containing the budget request for the U.S. Border Patrol which totaled just fewer than $11 billion of tax payers money. With more funding, the U.S. borders have seen a sudden increase in the numbers of agents patroling high traffic areas. Just in The El Paso/Las Cruces area about 400 new agents were hired for the stations of the El Paso sector which are located in El Paso, Fabens, Fort Hancock, Ysleta, Alamogordo, Albuquerque, Deming, Las Cruces, Lordsburg, Truth or Consequences, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

    Keep slandering good men and trying to drag them down into the gutter with your cult leader. It won’t work.

    Dave (1bb933)

  51. It’s not the mess Trump has to ‘deal’ with. It’s the mess Trump promised he have easily resolved several years ago, but instead made far worse on a practical level and impossible on a political level. If you voted for Trump to fix immigration, I’m sorry.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  52. While Trump was telling us Hillary would be a great president, and was among the greatest secretaries of state of all time, Bush was working with the realities of politics, which meant imperfect performance. He didn’t promise us lies, and he didn’t accomplish anything like what Trump promised to do. But he accomplished a lot more. Compare anybody to Trump’s promises of the fawning of his fans, and Trump wins, but compare actual results and it’s actually hard to find anyone who didn’t do better than Trump.

    Bush will be remembered as one of the great presidents, simply for how he responded to crisis. Yes that one crisis where Trump was bragging he now had the tallest building. Trump might think begging Kim for a photo op is going to salvage his legacy, but all he’s doing is helping the bad guys again. Trump will need to work hard to negotiate with congress to fund his wall. His failure to keep that promise doesn’t license him to tear the constitution up, and yes, a federal judge can do something about it.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  53. That Bush Jr may be an honorable man is probably of great significance to the many people adversely impacted by his disastrous presidency.

    Munroe (68024b)

  54. Let’s say that Congress tries to pass a law that allocates money for a Thanksgiving turkey at the WH, but the law fails to pass in the House.

    Has Congress said that the WH *cannot* spend money for a Thanksgiving turkey? Or does the WH simply have to find it in some other part of their budget?

    Kevin M (61459c)

  55. I have to agree with Dustin. If the Republicans had wanted to pass funding for a border wall, they would have when they had majorities in the House and Senate. But they didn’t, why? Perhaps because even they knew it was all a pipe dream, nothing but a hallucinatory campaign slogan spouted by a hookah-smoking fat caterpillar blowhard.

    The construction costs alone would be exorbitant, but the maintenance costs would be debilitating. All for some illusion that will do nothing to address the problems with immigration, migration and contraband.

    In a sense, it’s odd. Under Trump, the Republican Congress increased deficit spending on everything else, to heights that Obama couldn’t even imagine–and he had two full terms as a big government spender. Trump hasn’t even completed one term, and deficits are spiraling out of control, further adding to the national debt. “I love debt! I’m the king of debt,” said the failed, bankrupt businessman, who for years counted investor losses as personal gains on his income tax returns. Which, by the way, were all fraudulent, since he used various schemes to avoid paying income taxes on his inherited fortune. Trump is a total fraud.

    Oh, and Obama deported more illegal aliens under his watch every year than Trump has. Yeah, while Trump was not only hiring them, but giving them false documents, to do menial yardwork and janitorial service at his cheap hotels. Talk about a hypocrite.

    It’s a complete failure of leadership. Trump doesn’t build coalitions, instead he destroys them. He criticizes allies and coddles enemies. He is so much Putin’s submissive, it would be embarrassing to a gay prostitute. He caves to Xi, under pressure. He’s so in love with Kim that he went to visit him for a photo-op.

    Meanwhile, American farmers and businesses are losing market shares they spent years building, due to Trump’s idiotic trade war and tariffs. Farm bankruptcies are at levels that haven’t been seen since the early 80s–and that was because of severe weather event, not government policy. New home construction in in the tank. Manufacturing hasn’t returned. Exports have declined, but prices on imports have gone up. That affects consumers, especially those in the low and middle income brackets. Trump’s solution is to take the taxes they pay to bail out farms and businesses that are on the verge of bankruptcy because of his policies.

    You know who benefits from this mess? Russia, because they’ve been angling to control the flow of oil and gas to Europe for decades; that’s why they allied with Turkey, Iran and Syria. Also Venezuela. (Russia bought majority control of Citicorp, which as multiple refineries and several pipelines in the United States.) China, because they’ve been angling for control of trade across the Pacific. They’ve entered into a new trade agreement with a dozen countries, including Japan, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and Canada. China has lowered tariffs on exports from those countries, so they’re all benefitting from trade. The US stupidly backed out of that agreement, because Trump is an isolationist idiot.

    I don’t see any benefit for North Korea, other than keeping their nuclear arsenal, for welcoming the President of the United States. They export little. But a photo-op with POTUS does a great deal for Supreme Leader Kim.

    Trump is a complete embarrassment on the world stage. He is the antipathy of American leadership. Bend over for Putin, bow down to Xi, then cower to Kim.

    None of this makes us stronger. None of this makes us greater. All of this makes us weaker.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  56. So if President Obama had unilaterally declared “Emergency!” like Trump did, it would have all been kosher?

    No, because there was another law that listed persons to whom he could grant work permits (green cards), and he granted work permits to people not entitled to them. He COULD fail to enforce a law that would have normally deported them, but this was an act of commission, not omission.

    Again, there is no law that says “No money may be expended to build a wall.” There is simply a failure to REQUIRE money be spent to build a wall. Discretionary funds can still be used.

    Can you not understand this for some reason?

    Kevin M (61459c)

  57. Congress passed this blank check (and shouldn’t have), now some say that they don’t like how Trump uses these ill-conceived powers. TFB, and maybe they should do something about the power they gave the President. Their first clue should have been the last 100 emergency degrees (Chad? Really?)

    Kevin M (61459c)

  58. 26. Kevin M (61459c) — 6/29/2019 @ 2:42 pm

    hen consider: if Congress felt the need to say “No funds may be expended to arm the Contras” that means they knew that they did not have to specifically authorize money for the Contras in order for the CinC to deem it a necessary expense. </blockquote. It just means that, as a practical matter, they couldn't rely on failure to appropriate.

    There were maybe several different ways that money could be considered authorized, and there may have been general discretionary authority.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  59. 55. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/30/2019 @ 3:19 am

    “I love debt! I’m the king of debt,” said the failed, bankrupt businessman, who for years counted investor losses as personal gains on his income tax returns.

    No, he counted them as his losses and didn’t later add them back to his income. (this is not absolutely confirmed, I think, but there are a number of signs.)

    Oh, and Obama deported more illegal aliens under his watch every year than Trump has.

    Many of them were mainly Mexicans who had just crossed the border, while the number of internal deportees has gone up, (I think)

    while Trump was not only hiring them, but giving them false documents,

    If anybody actually gave them, they did it on their own – Trump would not ave been involved. At most some manaers might have steered applicants to he right places, if that happened.

    to do menial yardwork and janitorial service at his cheap hotels. Talk about a hypocrite.

    He didn’t really turn against illegal immigration until he began his presidential campaign. He did it because people had been talking against it for some 40 years on conservative talk radio, and because he could take a position that was more extreme than anyone else. If his competitors would follow him to extremity, they wouldn’t follow him to absurdity – therefore, not just a wall but Mexico paying for it. And all they had to offer in arguing against it was a very weak claim that Mexico would not in fact pay for the wall. That begged the issue of whether Mexico should pay for the wall, and if the United States could force it to.

    He is so much Putin’s submissive, it would be embarrassing to a gay prostitute. He caves to Xi, under pressure. He’s so in love with Kim that he went to visit him for a photo-op.

    He likes the superficial appearance of getting along.

    Farm bankruptcies are at levels that haven’t been seen since the early 80s–and that was because of severe weather event, not government policy.

    Is that correct? Are all the statistics you cite correct?

    Trump’s solution is to take the taxes they pay to bail out farms and businesses that are on the verge of bankruptcy because of his policies.

    That;s correct, although it isn’t specifically dedicated revenue.

    (Russia bought majority control of Citicorp, which as multiple refineries and several pipelines in the United States.)

    I think you mean Citgo.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  60. #55

    Gawain’s Ghost said:
    I have to agree with Dustin. If the Republicans had wanted to pass funding for a border wall, they would have when they had majorities in the House and Senate. But they didn’t, why?…

    Because the GOP didn’t have a filibuster proof Senate.

    In this political climate, democrats weren’t going to give his signature campaign promise a win.

    This was raw politics. Not because the GOP didn’t want to…

    It’s because they couldn’t.

    whembly (4605df)

  61. Don’t forget the nevertrumpers who think Trump is building the wall because he can’t control his subliminal racism. There were several Senators with an R after their names who can’t vote for the right thing because they think Trump is the wrong thing.
    Contact Marianne Williamson to translate that last sentence

    steveg (354706)

  62. Roberts could have taken the DACA case and slapped down the judge. Roberts could have supported Trump on the Census and slapped down the judge. Roberts could have sent a signal that if the Department of Justice appeals these injunction cases the SCOTUS will strike down the injunctions. While the cases go on. When Thomas wrote his opinion about how “We” the SCOTUS have to do something about the abuse of injunctions, Roberts could have joined him.

    And Roberts occasionally speaks in public and talks about the Supreme Court. He even publicly rebuked Trump was talking about “Democrat Judges”. So, Roberts could make a public statement.

    He’s done absolutely nothing – because he agrees with it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  63. frankly, even Gorsuch was disappointing with that sex offender decision, although I understand the procedural hurdles, but as with the Pennsylvania bomber who slipped through the screens three times,

    narciso (d1f714)

  64. 55. “Oh, and Obama deported more illegal aliens under his watch every year than Trump has. Yeah, while Trump was not only hiring them, but giving them false documents, to do menial yardwork and janitorial service at his cheap hotels. Talk about a hypocrite.”

    This. Trump has hired undocumented nationals since the 80s. Unbelieveable that his followers think he has some kind of credibility on the issue of immigration. Bless their hearts. Ah well. It’s a good show. Better than anything else that’s on.

    JRH (4be6f7)

  65. undocumented *foreigners rather.

    JRH (4be6f7)

  66. @ rcocean: Your contempt for the law, and abject worship for Donald Trump, is utterly nauseating. You literally don’t care what the law is.

    Sorry, dude, but I’ve got to filter you henceforward.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. he had eight years, he’s had three, except for judge hanen, no one stopped Obama for long, reverend moore was pushing the amnesty train, at 50 mph, daca and dapa are the lure that drive these caravans, constructs of executive purpose devoid of legislative authority,

    one would want a match to see how many citizens match the voter rolls, don’t you think, well judge Roberts doesn’t understand this,

    narciso (d1f714)

  68. so it was kennedy, wasn’t it who conjured up gay marriage because arc of history, and Roberts who midwifed Obamacare, correct me if I’m wrong, love wins means florists and cake shops lose,

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. “Oh, and Obama deported more illegal aliens under his watch every year than Trump has.”
    Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/30/2019 @ 3:19 am

    False. Are you moonlighting as a reporter for CNN? Trump has had only two full years of data to go by, but he exceeded Obama some years, did less others.

    Also, you can’t deport asylum seekers until their claims are fully processed and debunked. Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.

    What is your solution, assuming you have one?

    Munroe (e1b049)

  70. Roberts could have supported Trump

    He’s a judge! A justice on the highest court. He’s not a campaign spokesman for dear leader. WTF.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  71. Well, your “false” is false, according to the Trump administration. But, of course you knew that, why accept reality when you can just lie. Emulation is the best sort of flattery, or something.

    https://infogram.com/1pddy20d03wqzyim7g759ldnr1ik1wpkyr9

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  72. Response to

    False. Are you moonlighting as a reporter for CNN? Trump has had only two full years of data to go by, but he exceeded Obama some years, did less others.

    BTW

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  73. and the deportations are only within 100 miles of the border, but Obama was good, trump is evil, I think that’s the masthead of the bulwark,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.

    I think that’s false. Do you have a link, or did you pull this out of your butt, Munroe?

    The number of claims has risen under Trump, certainly, but I assure you that essentially every lawyer, every organization focused on assisting illegal entrants, every “community organizer” — in short, anyone to whom an illegal immigrant might look for advice — has known about the relevant law on asylum claims, and the ways available to game the system, going well back into the prior millennium. The volume has changed; some of the rules and procedures have also changed from time to time, resulting in slightly revised advice. But the basic technique hasn’t, and there’s been active litigation about this stuff essentially continuously. Maybe you didn’t know about it until you became a Trump fan. Others certainly did.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. Your contempt for the law, and abject worship for Donald Trump, is utterly nauseating. You literally don’t care what the law is.

    Its the liberals and the courts who don’t care about the law. They believe in civil disobedience, they refuse to enforce immigration laws, and in many cases the drug laws, and when they’re judges they just make up laws when it suits them.

    This country was never meant to ruled by the SCOTUS and the federal judiciary. We can elect a POTUS to secure the border, but it means nothing because a 40 y/o lawyer that no one has heard of disagrees. ITS INSANE!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  76. All this nonsense about Congress didn’t do this or that. If Congress wants to stop Trump from doing anything, they can do so. They have the power of the purse, and they pass the laws. Congress does NOT need the Federal courts to do their job and protect their powers.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  77. “I think that’s false. Do you have a link, or did you pull this out of your butt, Munroe?”
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/30/2019 @ 3:34 pm

    The asylum program has become strained in recent years as illegal immigrants, coached by smuggling cartels and relatives who’ve already made it to the U.S., have learned the “magic words” to game the system.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/us-asylum-system-facing-rampant-fraud-and-abuse/

    Claims have risen over 50% just from 2015 to 2017. See Table 6a. I’m sure that’s due to a corresponding increase in totally legit reasons for asylum.
    https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2017.pdf

    “going well back into the prior millennium.”
    Is that a way of saying 20 years? Do you have a link or are you pulling this out of your butt?

    Munroe (64d637)

  78. They have the power of the purse, and they pass the laws

    Don’t you understand? Trump’s emergency declaration declared that power of the purse unacceptable. Trump’s declaratiom was intended to bypass, even reverse, the power of the purse by taking money from things Congress had appropriated it for, and spending it on things Congress had not appropriated it for.

    Kishnevi (49889c)

  79. If Trump wanted The Wall as much as he wants love letters from Kim Jong Un, it would have already been built.

    nk (dbc370)

  80. And Mexico would have paid for it.

    nk (dbc370)

  81. Of course, reality and history exists. If he wanted more money, he had an offer…

    That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request.

    He should have taken yes for an answer, unless he really only wanted the fight, not a solution.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  82. Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers;

    He was more interested in giving them the House. So he would have both an excuse for his incompetency and an antagonist on The Trump Show.

    nk (dbc370)

  83. He was more interested in giving them the House. So he would have both an excuse for his incompetency and an antagonist on The Trump Show.

    I wish you were joking, but that just sounds like a pure statement of facts.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  84. That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request.

    But Trump doesn’t want that deal.

    When the deal was last offered he had already made it clear he didn’t want it. He also wanted reductions in legal immigration, particularly in the field of family reunification, and changes in asylum law. (the Democrats might be interested in changing asylum law, but the other way.)

    What Trump really wants is to take a position that the opposition will not go along with, but also can’t argue against. By can’t, I mean isn’t willing.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  85. I’m not joking. Trump is not about America. He is only about Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. 70. Munroe (e1b049) — 6/30/2019 @ 3:10 pm

    Also, you can’t deport asylum seekers until their claims are fully processed and debunked. Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.

    This method applies only to people other than Mexicans, because Mexicans had the option of just backing across the border with no record being kept. What happened is that the process got swamped.

    It should also be said, you might be surprised at what doesn’t qualify for asylum (running for your life does not – it depends on who is trying to kill you) and perhaps also at what does.

    To all?

    What is your solution, assuming you have one?

    Revisit the question of whether there is a problem here or not.

    It’s a problem for bureaucrats, that’s for sure. Not for anybody else, really. Fighting the forces of economics, or worse – that creates a problem.

    Sammy Finkelman (0d0ca8)

  87. Don’t you understand?

    There’s nothing to stop Congress from revising the law to stop Trump, if they wish.

    Congress has the power. They don’t need the courts to protect them. But i’m just stating the obvious and that gets boring. One thing I admire about the Liberal/left is they will chant the party line over and over and over again. You’d think they’d get bored, but no. They just keep chanting.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  88. Democratic activist enjoined wall.

    Narciso (f0d08f)

  89. @ Munroe (#78): The article you link does not support your assertion, which was that “Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.”

    So: Yes, you pulled your assertion out of your butt, and then you doubled down on the butt-pull by citing a source that doesn’t support your assertion.

    This is intellectual dishonesty. It’s another way of lying. It’s a deplorable practice, Munroe. Stop it if you want to have any credibility as anything other than a bad heckler cracking wise about slavery and the Holocaust. (Frankly, it’s probably already too late, but I believe you have the intellectual capacity to be honest, even if you choose otherwise.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  90. >All this nonsense about Congress didn’t do this or that. If Congress wants to stop Trump from doing anything, they can do so. They have the power of the purse, and they pass the laws. Congress does NOT need the Federal courts to do their job and protect their powers.

    When Congress says “we appropriate $x to be spent on $y” and the executive takes the $x and spends it on $z, how does Congress enforce its will without using the federal courts?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  91. All this nonsense about Congress didn’t do this or that. If Congress wants to stop Trump from doing anything, they can do so. They have the power of the purse, and they pass the laws. Congress does NOT need the Federal courts to do their job and protect their powers.

    When Congress says “we appropriate $x to be spent on $y” and the executive takes the $x and spends it on $z, how does Congress enforce its will without using the federal courts?

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/1/2019 @ 2:52 pm

    Because Congress also gave the Execute flexibility to move some fundings around as well? I don’t recall the exact statute, but I believe it’s granted to the Secretary of Defense.

    That means, Congress can disallow that specifically… if it choose to do so.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  92. And I’ve been a lawyer practicing in a border state, who deals with illegal immigration issues constantly in the context of civil disputes (like accident cases). I know from personal knowledge that this goes back into the prior millennium, and with due respect (which is just about none, in your case), I have a reputation, both in my practice and in my blogging on my own blog, and in my comments here, of caring for the truth and being accurate.

    But if you want a link that actually does support my assertion, try this one, documenting the history of the Flores litigation, which goes back to 1985, and the consent decree in which from 1997 is a crucial stumbling block in any efforts toward an overall solution.

    My blogging name, Beldar, comes from a character played by SNL’s Dan Aykroyd in their series of Conehead skits. Alas, Aykroyd’s all-purpose rejoinder to Jane Curtin’s arguments in another series of SNL skits — from, yes, the prior millennium — is not one I can use here, no matter how much it would be deserved.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  93. ‘@ Munroe (#78): The article you link does not support your assertion, which was that “Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.” ‘
    Beldar (fa637a) — 7/1/2019 @ 2:49 pm

    I provided two references, each of which is exactly in line with your request.

    The >50% increase in asylum claims in just two years is attributable to what exactly? Given your personal knowledge and reputation for caring for the truth (which I don’t dispute), I would appreciate an answer other than an appeal to your personal knowledge and reputation for caring for the truth.

    As for your Flores link, thank you. Very informative. It seems to be a third piece of supporting evidence. To wit:

    In the past few years, the number of aliens who have sought to initiate the asylum process by claiming “credible fear” of persecution during expedited removal — either at ports of entry or between them — has soared, in large part owing to the Flores settlement agreement and to Judge Gee. Aliens have clearly gotten the message that if they ask to be put into asylum proceedings, their children — and often if not usually the adults, too — will be released into the country shortly after they are apprehended as they await their removal proceedings. In fact, in FY 2018 alone, the number of aliens apprehended by Border Patrol claiming credible fear was 10-fold higher than a decade before, and 67 percent above the FY 2017 figure, reaching a staggering 92,959 claims. (See Figure 1.)

    What exactly are we disagreeing about? Getting such information handed to me is so much easier than pulling it out of my posterior.

    Munroe (f09cab)

  94. I’m not joking. Trump is not about America. He is only about Trump.

    “L’etat c’est moi”

    Kevin M (61459c)

  95. There’s nothing to stop Congress from revising the law to stop Trump, if they wish.

    According to some theories here, all they have to do is to propose a law to SUPPORT Trump and then not pass it.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  96. When Congress says “we appropriate $x to be spent on $y” and the executive takes the $x and spends it on $z, how does Congress enforce its will without using the federal courts?

    How specific are they? If they propose to spend $3 million to build a golf course at a military base, but the golf course only needs $2 million, do they HAVE to spend the other $1 million on that golf course? Can they sped it on another golf course? On a skating rink?

    Sometimes the federal budget is specific to detailed line items, sometimes it has broad categories of spending. You probably can’t spend NASA money on sugar price supports, but national security spending might be broad enough to find some funds for a wall. The “emergency” declaration probably opens some doors.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  97. Posting from Stockholm so this may be a bit sporatic.

    Kevin M (61459c)

  98. We disagree about your assertion, sir, that “Under Obama, migrants hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system.”

    They had. They had it figured out under Bush-43 as well. They had it figured out under Clinton. And Bush-41.

    Yes, yes, yes, of course the number of people crossing the border illegally, and taking advantage of this long-established “gaming” of the system, has increased under Trump. It was a deliberate legacy left to him by Obama. That is not the point, as I already explained, with more patience than you deserve, in #75.

    The point is whether “migrants [had or] hadn’t yet nailed down this method of gaming the system” under Obama, which is the false claim that you pulled out of your butt.

    I cannot be more plain. You could not be more obstinate, more desperate to re-frame the argument, nor less impressive in the intellectual honestly on display. Why not just admit: “I didn’t know what I was talking about, and I guessed, and I got called on it, so I’ve been trying to pretend this is about some other subject than my original assertion”?

    That would be refreshing. I shan’t hold my breath.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  99. Fair enough, Beldar. Presented with the option of being obstinate/desperate or accused of more butt extrusion, I concede the floor of honest and good faith engagement to you.

    Munroe (d660cd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3808 secs.